Tesla K20c vs GeForce GTX 970M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 970M with Tesla K20c, including specs and performance data.
970M outperforms K20c by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 419 | 565 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.55 | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | 13.11 | 2.85 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GK110 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 October 2014 (11 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,560.89 | $3,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 970M has 244% better value for money than Tesla K20c.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 2496 |
| Core clock speed | 924 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 83.04 | 146.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.657 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 40 |
| TMUs | 80 | 208 |
| L1 Cache | 480 KB | 208 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 1280 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 120 GB/s | 208.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 3.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 136
+70%
| 80−85
−70%
|
| Full HD | 58
+93.3%
| 30−35
−93.3%
|
| 1440p | 27
+68.8%
| 16−18
−68.8%
|
| 4K | 21
+75%
| 12−14
−75%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 44.15
+142%
| 106.63
−142%
|
| 1440p | 94.85
+111%
| 199.94
−111%
|
| 4K | 121.95
+119%
| 266.58
−119%
|
- GTX 970M has 142% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 970M has 111% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 970M has 119% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+71.1%
|
45−50
−71.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+88.6%
|
35−40
−88.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+71.1%
|
45−50
−71.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 46
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
| Fortnite | 163
+71.6%
|
95−100
−71.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 61
+74.3%
|
35−40
−74.3%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60
+71.4%
|
35−40
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+67.1%
|
70−75
−67.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 54
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+71.1%
|
45−50
−71.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+72.7%
|
110−120
−72.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+80%
|
50−55
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 43
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Fortnite | 65
+85.7%
|
35−40
−85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
+76.7%
|
30−33
−76.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 49
+81.5%
|
27−30
−81.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+81.5%
|
27−30
−81.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45
+66.7%
|
27−30
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+67.1%
|
70−75
−67.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 49
+81.5%
|
27−30
−81.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+80%
|
50−55
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 36
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 33
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+67.1%
|
70−75
−67.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 49
+81.5%
|
27−30
−81.5%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+71.7%
|
60−65
−71.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+70.8%
|
65−70
−70.8%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+66.3%
|
80−85
−66.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 31
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+67.5%
|
40−45
−67.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 15
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
This is how GTX 970M and Tesla K20c compete in popular games:
- GTX 970M is 70% faster in 900p
- GTX 970M is 93% faster in 1080p
- GTX 970M is 69% faster in 1440p
- GTX 970M is 75% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.73 | 8.28 |
| Recency | 7 October 2014 | 12 November 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 5 GB |
GTX 970M has a 66% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
Tesla K20c, on the other hand, has a 67% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTX 970M is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20c in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 970M is a notebook graphics card while Tesla K20c is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
